We know that one in nine pupils are persistently absent. This is a big problem: according to a Department for Education report published in 2016, life chances for children are lowered proportionately to their attendance, irrespective of gender, race, disability or poverty.
Clearly, the pandemic has made things worse. More children than ever have missed school due to isolation or illness, and existing risk factors driving absence have been exacerbated, with additional ones, too, coming to the fore.
This is particularly the case for vulnerable children or those in more deprived areas where persistent absence is most common. In fact, nearly half of persistent absentees live in the 30 per cent highest areas of child poverty.
In recent months, the issue of attendance has permeated into Whitehall and education secretary Nadhim Zahawi has committed to making it a priority.
Indeed, it was encouraging to see the DfE publish the consultation, ‘School attendance: improving consistency of support’. The title and introduction suggested a response to the causes of non-attendance, rather than just regulation of symptoms.
However, on closer inspection, the emphasis is on stricter tools to measure and manage absence. In reality, absenteeism deserves to be understood with far greater precision, coherence and depth. Simply focusing on sanctioning parents with fines and endeavouring to “police” pupil attendance is not enough. The reasons are complex, contextual and worth finding out.
The Big Ask survey from the Children’s Commissioner in 2021 included 1,900 children who were not permanently in school. It highlighted that attendance has an important role to play in children’s life chances, and reiterated the importance of understanding individual children’s experiences.
Disappointingly, children cited unhappiness at school as their biggest barrier to attendance. This was particularly apparent among pupils with special educational needs or disabilities and those with poor physical health, who felt that they did not receive the adequate level of support at school for their needs, and who also experienced bullying. It was also similar for children who suffered with mental health issues, who said that Camhs support was not accessible enough to support their attendance.
Children like this need supporting, not policing.
What the system needs now is a “Big Think” to work out how to reframe beliefs and practices in a way that brings pupils back into school.
First and foremost, we need a sea change in the language we use: the category attracts a range of labels like truancy, absenteeism, persistent absence, unauthorised absence, school refusal, and there is an inconsistency in the way data from schools is collected.
But we also need to ask ourselves: how are excused and unexcused absences or in-school suspensions treated? Is data gathered to develop support plans?
Research can help shape this: in 2010, academics from the Netherlands found that student bonds contribute to student success (Veenstra et al., 2010). In 2009, researchers in the US found that students who are engaged and see value in education are less likely to experience truancy (Gentle-Genitty, 2009). And according to a study from the University of Pennsylvania, the earlier absences and poor punctuality start, the more likely it is that students will go on to have long term absence and punctuality issues (Gottfried, 2017).
Personally, I believe that when it comes to tackling attendance, there’s a clear lesson to be learned from SEND education. When we shift our attitude and language to a strength-based approach, instead of a deficit diagnosis, we improve understanding, pupil self-esteem, engagement and outcomes.
To see the change schools need, talking explicitly about positive attendance rather than negative absence would be a good place to start.
Margaret Mulholland is the special educational needs and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders
